receiving a decision wliicii violates international instruments such as the Covenant and its Protocol. Moreover, the Uruguayan Govern­ ment considers that the provisions in those international instruments extend to State parties as subjects of international law. Thus these in­ ternational norms, like any agreement of such nature, are apphcable to States and not directly to individuals. Consequently, the Committee can hardly claim that this decision extends to any particular in­ dividual. For the reasons given, the Government of Uruguay rejects the present decision of the Committee, which violates elementary norms and principles and thus indicates that the Committee is under­ mining its commitments in respect of the cause of promoting and defending human rights. 15. The Human Rights Committee, having exam­ ined the present communication in the light of all the in­ formation made available to it by the parties as pro­ vided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol, hereby decides, in the absence of comments by the State party, to base its views on the following facts as set out by the author: 16.1 Events prior to the entry into force of the Covenant: Ratil Sendic Antonaccio, a main founder of the Movimiento de Liberación Nacional (MLN)—Tupamaros, was arrested in Uruguay on 7 August 1970. On 6 September 1971, he escaped from prison, and on 1 September 1972 he was re-arrested after having been seriously wounded. Since 1973 he has been considered as a "hostage", meaning that he is liable to be killed at the first sign of action by his organization, MLN (T). Between 1973 and 1976, he was held in five penal institutions and subjected in all of them to mistreatment (sohtary confinement, lack of food and harassment). In one of them, in 1974, as a result of a severe beating by the guards, he developed a hernia. indication that these final review proceedings have taken place), the Committee is not barred from con­ sidering the present communication, since the applica­ tion of remedies has been unreasonably prolonged. 18. The Human Rights Committee cannot accept the State party's contention that it exceeded its mandate when in its decision of 24 October 1980, it requested the State party to afford to Raúl Sendic Antonaccio the op­ portunity to communicate directly with the Committee. The Committee rejects the State party's argument that a victim's right to contact the Committee directly is invahd in the case of persons imprisoned in Uruguay. If Governments had the right to erect obstacles to contacts between victims and the Committee, the procedure established by the Optional Protocol would, in many in­ stances, be rendered meaningless. It is a prerequisite for the effective apphcation of the Optional Protocol that detainees should be able to communicate directly with the Committee. The contention that the International Covenant and the Protocol apply only to States, as sub­ jects of international law, and that, in consequence, these instruments are not directly applicable to in­ dividuals is devoid of legal foundation in cases where a State has recognized the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from in­ dividuals under the Optional Protocol. That being so, denying individuals who are victims of an alleged viola­ tion their rights to bring the matter before the Commit­ tee is tantamount to denying the mandatory nature of the Optional Protocol. 19. The Human Rights Committee notes with deep concern that the State party has failed to fulfil its obligations under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol and has completely ignored the Committee's repeated requests for information concerning Raúl Sendic's state of health, the medical treatment given to him and his ex­ act whereabouts. The Committee is unable to fulfil the task conferred upon it by the Optional Protocol if States parties do not provide it with all the information rele­ vant to the formation of the views referred to in article 5 (4). Knowledge of the state of heahh of the person concerned is essential to the evaluation of an allegation of torture or ill-treatment. 16.2 Events subsequent to the entry into force of the Covenant: In September 1976, he was transferred to the barracks of Ingenieros in the city of Paso de los Toros. There, from February to May 1978, or for the space of three months, he was subjected to torture {"plantones", beatings, lack of food). On 28 November 1979 (date of the author's initial communication), his whereabouts were unknown. He is now detained in the RegimientoPablo Galarza No. 2, Department of Durazno, in an underground cell. His present state of heahh is very poor (because of his hernia, he can take only liquids and is unable to walk without help) and he is not being given the medical attention he requires. In July 1980, he was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment plus 15 years of special security measures. He was not informed of the charges brought against him. He was never able to con­ tact the lawyer assigned to him, Mr. Almicar Perrea. His trial was held in camera and in his absence and he was not allowed to present witnesses in support of his case. In September 1980 and in April and May 1981, it was publicly announced that his sentence was to be reviewed by the Supreme Military Tribunal. 20. The Human Rights Committee, acting under ar­ ticle 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee, in so far as they continued or occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay), disclose violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly of: Article 7 and article 10 (1), because Raúl Sendic is held in solitary confinement in an underground cell, was subjected to torture for three months in 1978 and is being denied the medical treatment his condition re­ quires; 17. The Human Rights Committee observes that, when it took its decision on admissibility on 25 July 1980, it had no information about Raiil Sendic's trial before a court of first instance. The Committee further observes that, although his sentence is to be reviewed by the Supreme Military Tribunal (there has as yet been no Article 9 (3), because his right to trial within reasonable time has not been respected; 104